REMINDER: Siteowner has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, Siteowner reserves the right to review the Materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such Materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. Siteowner has no obligation to display or post any Materials provided by you. Siteowner reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or Materials that Siteowner deems necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. To further read the rules and terms of agreement of this Forum, click here.

I also agree that more direct stimulus to average people is a good idea

Forgiving student loan debt would give the economy a big boost, for example

I think trump gets that there needs to be a greater stimulus at the bottom

Agree totally here, and I admit I'm still thinking in a more theoretic function while you're being more pragmatic.

I don't think making banking a public utility is the key either; rather forced breakup into smaller pieces and forcing competition is the key.

The problem is that other countries actively support their large banks

We have a dominant position in this industry currently. It's actually a strategic asset. Put aside that a few true assholes get massively rich from it. As a nation, this is a huge tool at our disposal.

If we were to break up the banks, they would not be able to compete with the other massive foreign banks

We would cede our dominant position in financial markets

This means we as a nation would be more likely to be at the whims of foreign nations to fund our economy

We already have a strategic weakness due to the massive trade imbalances we have with other nations

If we weakened our position with respect to capital markets as well, we would really be weakened

We have plenty of existing law on the books to use to improve the overall performance at these big lenders and institutions, and in fact the smaller entities are forced into compliance because they can't afford to gamble with fighting them. I think the key is to crank down on the larger entities with the specific intent to force them to comply AT LEAST as well as the smaller entities do.

We don't need more law so much as we need more consistent enforcement of the existing laws. It's already illegal to lie cheat and steal. We don't need 1000 more regs that make it illegal to lie cheat and steal.

If you want to level the playing field and enable a more competitive environment you start at the top, not the bottom.

Rule of Law, Bro. It's a thing. How well or poorly we enforce that Rule of Law is just as significant to our social stability as that of any other society.

We have plenty of existing law on the books to use to improve the overall performance at these big lenders and institutions, and in fact the smaller entities are forced into compliance because they can't afford to gamble with fighting them. I think the key is to crank down on the larger entities with the specific intent to force them to comply AT LEAST as well as the smaller entities do.

We don't need more law so much as we need more consistent enforcement of the existing laws. It's already illegal to lie cheat and steal. We don't need 1000 more regs that make it illegal to lie cheat and steal.

If you want to level the playing field and enable a more competitive environment you start at the top, not the bottom.

Rule of Law, Bro. It's a thing. How well or poorly we enforce that Rule of Law is just as significant to our social stability as that of any other society.

Agree with this generally

However, the nuance here is that the very largest banks have been getting absolutely hammered by regulators since the financial crisis

In some respect, this goes with the territory for being too big to fail

However, the point is that we don't need to turn the screws harder at the top. They are already subject to disproportionate scrutiny at the top

On some level, there is a political game being played

The game is designed to obscure the fact that too big to fail is just a reality

There is no great solution to too big to fail, but the government does not want to level with the public about this

It's similar to other huge problems like entitlements--- there is no political incentive to be upfront about the magnitude of the issue and the lack of a real solution

We have plenty of existing law on the books to use to improve the overall performance at these big lenders and institutions, and in fact the smaller entities are forced into compliance because they can't afford to gamble with fighting them. I think the key is to crank down on the larger entities with the specific intent to force them to comply AT LEAST as well as the smaller entities do.

We don't need more law so much as we need more consistent enforcement of the existing laws. It's already illegal to lie cheat and steal. We don't need 1000 more regs that make it illegal to lie cheat and steal.

If you want to level the playing field and enable a more competitive environment you start at the top, not the bottom.

Rule of Law, Bro. It's a thing. How well or poorly we enforce that Rule of Law is just as significant to our social stability as that of any other society.

Agree with this generally

However, the nuance here is that the very largest banks have been getting absolutely hammered by regulators since the financial crisis

In some respect, this goes with the territory for being too big to fail

However, the point is that we don't need to turn the screws harder at the top. They are already subject to disproportionate scrutiny at the top

On some level, there is a political game being played

The game is designed to obscure the fact that too big to fail is just a reality

There is no great solution to too big to fail, but the government does not want to level with the public about this

It's similar to other huge problems like entitlements--- there is no political incentive to be upfront about the magnitude of the issue and the lack of a real solution

I work in a finance-related occupation (relating to due diligence and safe/sound lending requirements) and from my experience the impact on these institutions has been much more dramatic on the smaller entities than the larger ones.

Bigger is more efficient due to the natural economies of scale, but IMO the consumers and the public would be far better served if there was more competition in the market; not less.

However, the nuance here is that the very largest banks have been getting absolutely hammered by regulators since the financial crisis

In some respect, this goes with the territory for being too big to fail

However, the point is that we don't need to turn the screws harder at the top. They are already subject to disproportionate scrutiny at the top

On some level, there is a political game being played

The game is designed to obscure the fact that too big to fail is just a reality

There is no great solution to too big to fail, but the government does not want to level with the public about this

It's similar to other huge problems like entitlements--- there is no political incentive to be upfront about the magnitude of the issue and the lack of a real solution

Absolutely hammered? They have been getting relatively light fines for FIXING markets, light enough that said fixing, when factoring in the fines, was still very, very profitable. Regulatory capture is in full effect at that tier. No criminal charges for any executives of any of the top financial institutions since 2007, let alone convictions and prison time. There are solutions to this, just a lack of will.

I'm still trying not to hate the player and hate the game instead. Congress and the regulatory agencies have fallen down on the job and created this environment. And the irony of having two guys heavily backed by the financial sector supposedly coming up with a fix, post-crisis, is palpable.

At any rate, the history over the last 35 years has demonstrated what happens every time the State gives the bankers more rope to play with. IMO the most evil thing Clinton and Bush43 ever did was to gut the banking regulatory agencies back in the early 2000s. I hold each of them personally responsible for the excesses that led to the 2005 meltdown.

There are a fair number of bankers and others in related occupations (including my own) who earned a bullet to the back of their heads but who have completely escaped justice due to malfeasance and non-feasance of the Executive Branch not doing its job.

The economic ruins these assholes created via outright greed and avarice will live on in our economy for many years to come. Obviously this wasn't all bankers and it wasn't all the other related parties, but it only takes a few assholes to ruin things for everyone else.

So yeah, In my view the demonstrated risks fully justify the additional supervision and enforcement. It's not fair to the companies that always operated on the up, but unfortunately we can't afford the repeat.

We have plenty of existing law on the books to use to improve the overall performance at these big lenders and institutions, and in fact the smaller entities are forced into compliance because they can't afford to gamble with fighting them. I think the key is to crank down on the larger entities with the specific intent to force them to comply AT LEAST as well as the smaller entities do.

We don't need more law so much as we need more consistent enforcement of the existing laws. It's already illegal to lie cheat and steal. We don't need 1000 more regs that make it illegal to lie cheat and steal.

If you want to level the playing field and enable a more competitive environment you start at the top, not the bottom.

Rule of Law, Bro. It's a thing. How well or poorly we enforce that Rule of Law is just as significant to our social stability as that of any other society.

Agree with this generally

However, the nuance here is that the very largest banks have been getting absolutely hammered by regulators since the financial crisis

In some respect, this goes with the territory for being too big to fail

However, the point is that we don't need to turn the screws harder at the top. They are already subject to disproportionate scrutiny at the top

On some level, there is a political game being played

The game is designed to obscure the fact that too big to fail is just a reality

There is no great solution to too big to fail, but the government does not want to level with the public about this

It's similar to other huge problems like entitlements--- there is no political incentive to be upfront about the magnitude of the issue and the lack of a real solution

Hell's freezing over, because I agree with you on this issue. Obama went way too far in the effort to protect consumers and banks should largely be left alone. Perhaps contradictory, I also thought the bailouts were necessary.